format and the competitors in the television news business agree with that premise and add that obama might like him because he doesn't press with hard-hitting questions and doesn't talk over him in the manner of fox news host bill o'reilly. as politico knows, any talkover we do here to keep the interviewee, whether it be barack obama or george w. bush or anyone else on the answer track. when somebody dodges a question, or filibusters, and doesn't stop talking, i jump in. and that's my job to get answers. so, here is the tip of the day, you have a lot of time, be plight and listen to someone ruminate all day long, but if you have a time limit like i do, jump in there and get to the point. and life is too short not to. that's the tip of the day. that's it for us tonight. check out the fox news factor website different from billoreilly.com and spout off about the factor,

o'reilly@foxnews.com, and name and town if you wish to opine. word of the day, do not be delusive, when writing to the factor. and i'm bill o'reilly and remember the spin stops here and we're definitely looking out for you. >> welcome to hannity. earlier today, a group of eight senators frame work for the immigration laws for nearly 11 million undocumented people living in this country. in just a moment i'll be joined by one of the lawmakers who helped put this together. senator marco rubio from florida, but first, here is how the deal was announced earlier today. the eight senators who came up with this plan have a number of goals in mind. now, first, they want to secure our borders and that means first, the agreement calls for creating a path to citizenship for those who are

already living here in the united states illegally and they also want to reform the legal immigration system that the u.s. has in place and they want to create an effective employment verification system to prevent the hiring of unauthorized workers which will help combat identity theft and establishing an improved process for future workers it to serve our work force needs. tomorrow, president obama is expect today layout his vision for sweeping immigration reforms and billed as a major speech, however, ahead of that and in response to what we heard today out of the senate i thought i would share my views, as a conservative on this topic. now, the issue of immigration has been used as a political wedge by democrats for years. and now, republicans, they have been falsely accused of not caring about latino immigrants because the republicans demand that our borders be secured and secured first. now, let's cut to the chase, if we don't secure american borders, we'll never be safe as a country. this has got to be a top

national security priority. now, this issue is a whole lot bigger than people just coming to america they want opportunity. because the terrorists across the border, drug smugglers, and the impact has been massive. and impact on education, criminal justice system has cost this country billions and billions of dollars. now, as this debate moves forward. i want to warn republicans in the house and senate that as president reagan once said, trust, but verify, now, any deal that is made with democrats must include securing the borders first and i mean totally secure and otherwise i promise you you're going to be back ten years from now and we're going to be dealing with the exact same issues and to be honest i frankly have little or no trust in senator schumer, senator durbin and president obama. i don't think they want to solve the issue, i think they want to politicize it. so my advice to republican lawmakers, proceed with caution. joining me now with reaction to today's announcement. senator marco rubio, senator,

good visor bad advice? >> good advice. and thanks for having me on to talk about this important topic. i think it's a good moment to remind people and the country that the vast majority of favorites favor legal immigration and we don't have a legal immigration system that works right now and our problem with illegal immigration is that it undermines legal immigration. so we have 11 million people that are undocumented and we understand that we have to deal with this issue because we have 11 million people that by all accounts are going to be here the rest of their lives with or without documents, but our objection has been in the past that we can't do anything to deal with 11 million people that, number one, is unfair to people who have done i the right way, or number two, that will encourage illegal immigration in the future. and that's why your point is so important, and one of the things that i have made a key part of my own personal principles, i'm glad we found our way into these principles and must be a part of any final bill. before week move towards a path for green cards, because citizenship comes after that, it's a path to green cards. before we move to a path

towards green cards, there has to be enforcement mechanisms, verified and in place and the not just the border, it's workplace enforcement because that's the magnet for legal immigration and 40% of our legal immigration and undocumented in the country overstayed their visas, and we don't track when people leave and we don't know who and where they are. all of these things must happen before, before there's a path to a green card and that's a critical part of any component that i do here. as i read the frame work, earlier senator, it said simultaneously, so i wonder if people were playing games politically. >> no, let me explain that. here is what happens, when you're undocumented, you have to come forward and identify yourself and you're going to be fingerprinted and have a background check done and you're going to have to pay taxes and fines and what you get is a nonimmigrant visa, a nonimmigrant visa, a work permit to stay in the country and you don't qualify for any

federal berths for that. you don't get federal benefits, they're going to have to stay in this process for a significant period of time. while they're in that process is when all of these security stuff needs to happen. after a number of years have gone by and the security enforcement stuff is in place, then the second phase begins. which would give the people an opportunity to apply for a green card, the same way that everybody else does, not the special way, which means you have to stand in line with everyone in line, and apply, and in essence we're giving people the opportunity to earn the chance to do this the way they should have done it. that's why they say simultaneous, and when you're in the probationary period that's when this is happening. >> sean: for example, you said no federal benefits. you have to prove you have a job and background check.

is it going to be that stringent for people? >> that's why the details are so important how you write it. you're absolutely right, this is a town where they write things and call something and that's not what it is. you said something in your outline that's very important. i don't want to ever have to do this again, but that's what's going to happen if all we do is the legalization part and don't do the enforcement part and the only way that i know, to incentivize the enforcement part is to stay that the green card stuff doesn't begin to happen if the enforcement happens first. that trigger is critically important and that's why we're where we are today. when we did this in 1986 they did not do the enforcement and that led to 11 million people, back in ten years or less if we don't do the enforcement. >> can i characterize that, if you don't get enforcement first or securing the borders first, is that a deal killer for you? >> oh, absolutely. i mean, because it's -- we'll be right back here again and i want to deal with this permanently. and i think the vast majority of people in both parties

would agree with me on that point. no one ever wants to have to do this again. no one is happy about the fact that we have 11 million people here who are undocumented. something that should never ever happen again, but the decisions made that led to this happened when i was in 9th grade, a long time ago and now we have to deal with this so it never happens again. >> sean: how do you respond-- i read the frame work and when you first explained it to me last week and i spoke to you. >> yeah. >> sean: i said, this was the most interesting proposal that i had ever heard. it seemed like you were really sincere in putting this to bed once and for all and also, it seemed like a very, very difficult process with a lot of penalties involved for people who did not respect our laws and sovereignty. what do you say to people that say, ultimately in the end if people can get a green card, they can stay, that it's a back door form of amnesty. what's your response to that? >> well, first of all, the bottom line, that it would have been cheaper and easier for them to have done it the legal way than the way they're going to get it now. creating an incentive and not

rewarding it. quite frankly, for many of the people, they would have been better off doing it the right way. it's going to cost them penalties, taxes, a significant wait and then after they do all of that, the only thing they're going to have access to is the opportunity to apply for a green card. you still have to qualify for the visa you're applying for. so they would have been better off doing it the right way from beginning. and amnesty is given from the proposal in 2007 that created a brand new thing called a visa, a blanket and had to do little to qualify for it. so, look, the reason, this is not, we're not trying to punish anybody here. it's not about that we're angry at immigrants, it's about the fact that we don't want this to ever happen again and we don't want to be unfair to the people that have done it in the right way. sean, i have hundreds of people a month come to the offices talking about the fact that they have family members waiting in line to come the right way. our message cannot be come illegally because it's cheaper and quicker. on the other hand it's a reality. 11 million human beings in

this country that will be here the rest of their lives and solve it-- >> they go back to the back of the line, that will be part of the legislation. >> yes, not only do they go to the back of the line and wait for everybody who applied before them the right way. when he their turn comes up they have to qualify for the visa that they apply for. >> sean: and security checks-- and it's the most thoughtful proposal that i've heard and you've explained it better than anybody, but the devil will be in the details. >> always is. >> sean: and to me, i agree with you, it if they don't secure the border first we'll be back debating it in five years. senator, thank you for the clarification and wish the you best of luck on this moving forward. >> thank you, sean. >> sean: if the that you the president's assault on your second amendment, right to bear arms wasn't enough he's going after the first amendment, freedom of speech and what he's saying about the fox news channel and rush limbaugh. that's next and then later. >> why can you defend

yourself, but not the majority of americans? i mean, look at the team of security you've got? >> and much jason mattera tries to question gun control hypocrite michael bloomberg, instead he ends up being trailed by the security detail. the bizarre tape, we'll play it for you as "hannity" continues tonight.

>> and welcome back to "hannity." now, last week we watched as president barack obama delivered his inaugural address. as you know came at a time when his administration happens to be engaged on an assault on the second amendment and rights of law-abiding americans and seems that trampling on your rights to keep and bear arms isn't enough for this president, no, now he's setting his sights higher.

what's his next target? according to the anointed one, failed for the economy and failed for radical extremism abroad and some dared to speak out against his agenda. in an interview with the new republic magazine, blames fox news and rush limbaugh for the gridlock in washington d.c. quote, i don't think the issue is whether or not there are people of goodwill in either party that want to get something done. i think what we really have to do is change some of the incentive structures so that people feel liberated to pursue some common ground. one of the biggest factors is going to be how the media shapes the base. if the republican member of congress is not punished on fox news or by rush limbaugh for working with a democrat on a bill of common interests, then you'll see more of them doing it. in other words, forget about that little thing called freedom of speech, differing views and instead, wants any, all opposing voices to what, be silenced? that includes the opinions on this program and watch every single night. what the president fails to

understand is that he is the reason why in large part washington's divided. it's his rhetoric responsible for polarizing the country and the fox news channel frankly has been the only media organization on this planet that has delivered fair and balanced coverage of his administration and why he doesn't like it and bashing the first and second amendments of the constitution, and sorry, mr. president, we're going to continue on this program to do our part to save from your radical agenda. here is peter johnson, jr., the co-host "the five", a national syndicated radio talk show host andrea tantaros, and we'll run the tape of your partner. >> yes, talk about politicians when you ask the questions, a perfect example. >> mayor bloomberg. >> you try to ask the mayor a question, will he disarm his security. and jason asked him a simple

question, he said i'll get back to you and the figure five body guards and asked for his date of birth and talk about stalkers, they don't like that point of view, dare you question a liberal. >> sean: help me, peter, but for fox news and rush limbaugh, we have a perfect-- i'm not saying that the president is a dictator, but wouldn't that be what we had? >> and the president won the election, but he didn't win america and so now he's taking on the second amendment big time and the mayor is going out across america to do this bidding. and do this mission. so we're going to see boycotts. we're going to see issues with regards to financing firearms companies and now the president is saying, listen, do it the way i do it or i'm going to come down your pipe. do it the way msnbc does it, do it the way the pool of journalists, the journalist whose only mission in life is to suck up to the president of

the united states, who gets their talking points from the white house. so to say, you know, what's happened here is we have a barrier according to the president that stops the will of the people. and sean, you know what the institutional barrier is? the united states constitution, and so, people at home should be afraid because they say, am i not allowed to watch fox anymore. not allowed to listen to rush or sean? am i doing something that's unamerican in doing so? you're not. it's pretty amazing that those that are his critics seem to stick in his craw. he seems hypersensitive that he can't really handle just a smidgen of criticism from my perspective. he has a fawning media. >> i think he's very insecure. if you look at any kind of interview that challenges him, our own bret baier did an interview with him and he asked him anything, but a

softball question and the president bristled. that's why he failed in that debate because he wasn't tested at all. it's a love fest aeevery time he's around. if i were another media outlet i'd be embarrassed, ashamed. >> sean: a great point. >> if any other outlet presented both sides that the way that fox news does, that president of ours would have mentioned that news outlet and he didn't. so the only two things standing in his way are that pesky number one, by the way, fox news channel and talk radio. and this is -- this is rules for radicals. remember, in 2008. >> sean: isolate. >> get in your neighbor's face, the next thing go after them. i think it's going to back fire, sean, because half of america agrees with fox news and agrees with talk radio and think he's polarizing. they're smart. they get it. >> sean: i think they get it, too. when he ran last time the comments before the election, george bush, bank of china, name of our kids,

irresponsible, and 6 trillion in debt doesn't get asked a single questions, dirty air, dirty water, republicans-- >> no scrutiny because there is for the most part a compliant, subserviant, serving press corps that says, wow, this is historic. this is incredible. look what you've done for us here, while at the same time, the numbers plummet and our country's future is in doubt. and this is an opportunity for a lot of americans, and it's more than 50% of americans, sean, who say the first amendment means something. even though i may not like guns, they say, the second amendment means something. so, there's one strike on the first amendment. there's two strikes on the second amendment. third strike, are we out in this country? >> i said media is dead in 2008 and now i say the media is basically an extension of the obama press-- >> they run the media and they have the chinese praising

president obama for what he's doing on gun control. the communist chinese are praising him. i agree with peter, a majority of the country supports the constitution while the president has contempt for it. in the minds of most americans it is, and the way that the the founding fathers had it, it is government, get out of the way of the citizens, but not with this administration, it's citizens, media, anyone who just wants to give the other side, get out of the way. >> a politician complaining about the press, like a ship captain complaining about the sea. can't stand it, get off the ship. that's what fox news is it supposed to do. that's what limbaugh is supposed to do. >> right. >> that's what sean hannity is supposed to do. >> sean: not stopping. >> are you afraid. >> sean: no. >> it's a big distraction, and that's what i think it is. you have the muslim brotherhood, al-qaeda on the run, and the guns, it's a distraction, i'm going to define my enemies over here,

over here and nothing over here. >> sean: and not only are we going to continue, i hope next time i get a mention, mr. president you did a lot in 2007, 2008. attack away. >> i feel a feeling you may be next, sean, watch that video of jason mattera and you guys got to stick around. >> and there are no listening in america, there are no enemies, land of the free. >> sean: there might be. he claims to have ban been a constitutional law professor, but president obama got a failing grade from a u.s. appeals court and we'll tell you about the brazen presidential action that he took that the court is now calling illegal and then tonight-- >> look, look, look, we're getting a following, ask bloomberg a question and we get followed. >> sean: jason mattera is harassed by the new york city mayor michael bloomberg after tearing to ask a question if he would give up his gun detail.

a shocking confrontation on tape and we'll play it for you tonight as hannity returns.

>> welcome back to hannity. president obama claims to be a constitutional scholar, but has a long history of circumventing the law of the land and late last week, another example to help prove the point, a federal court ruled that president obama violated the constitution, by making three recess appointments to the national labor relations board, but the white house, they're fighting back in a ruling by the u.s. court of appeals, by the unprecedented, in fact just the opposite and this is another example to add to the growing list that we've been highlighting on the very program about how far obama is willing to stretch the constitution, and his presidential powers. now, we saw this in libya where the president did not get congressional approval to

launch air assaults, we saw this when he decided to issue an executive order stopping the deportation of illegal immigrants and we saw this jammed through obama fair and when the justice department refused to uphold the defense of marriage act and the weakened welfare requirements and push through the controversial contraception mandate and unfortunately, i don't think the most recent example that we've been given is going to be the last. joining me, is texas congressman louie gomer and congresswoman marsha blackburn. >> how are you. >> sean: i don't think that he respects the constitution and keeps pushing it to a breaking point. i think you're exactly right. and what we can't continue to see, and congress is that he scircumvents us. and people are tired of this president not respecting the constitution and trying to do executive orders and trying to

have special commissions to decide problems, all things that we in congress should be doing. >> aren't they supposed to be co-equal branches of government. separation of powers? it's pretty basic stuff. >> it's part of the constitution and i think one of the big legal ramifications that should come out of this would be a class action lawsuit by all of those who had him as a constitutional law instructor to get their money back, i think it would be a lay down case for them. this guy does not respect the constitution, he does not abide by the constitution and we've seen it repeatedly, including the things that you mention. when you have a president that stands up and says, i don't like the law that dually passed congress and signed into law by another president, so i don't like it, here is the new law and he pronounces the new law as he speaks. that's not a president that does that. >> well, and obviously, this court said that. so, this was a real big loss for him. you can't make a recess

appointment when the-- that's not a recess. >> exactly. >> and now, what my hope is, is that you're going to see the labor relations board that has to be called null and void, all of these decisions that they have made, null and void, the same thing would happen with the consumer financial protection board and richard cordray, that should all be null and void. because you cannot do this. the court has said you can't do it and they have moved forward with these sweeping actions. and so, it's time to recall it all. >> all right, let me talk politics with both of you. louie, you oppose john boehner for speaker. >> i like the man and-- >> i supported him. marsha, you supported him, but you're also a conservative. i said on this program friday night that unless and until house republicans totally, completely unite as one team, you will have no power. you will have the power if the-- if the republican caucus gets

in a room and unites in a strategy for obama. i think the country needs- your am i right? >> i don't think it hurts to have disagreement within the republican caucus. you know, they've talked about how much money ronald reagan raised for the heritage foundation, even when the heritage foundation was taking shots for it not being conservative enough. and ed says, you know, president reagan says, look, i need you on my right, fussing at me, so when i negotiate with tip o'neill-- >>, but if the republicans in the house are not united and i would argue on conservative principles, obama's going to win and the only way you have power if you're together. is that-- >> that's true. >> i think that you're right there. the number one issue with the american people is the out of control spending. and, you know, we took our actions with the no budget, no pay and this weekend, when i was in california with some of

my colleagues, constituents, people were excited that we laid down the law and pointed out, they realized for the first time that the senate hasn't done their job and sean, they want to see us hold the senate accountable, they want to see us push forward, united to cut back the spending and put us on the road to fiscal health. and we're ready to do a budget and it's a tall order. have you ever gotten in a room and anyone said we need to get together or else we have no power against obama? has that happened? >> it's been said over and over, when the speaker brings yet another bill, and lives away our leverage and has not cut spending, then that's all we hear. >> i love football, my favorite support and get tired of football metaphors, there's no i in team and only one quarterback in the huddle. and a better football metaphor is, if you're getting the kickoff and you take it and start running toward your own goal, don't expect me to block for you going the wrong goal.

you know, we need to be together on the things we agree on. >> i agree. >> and every one of us took a pledge, called a pledge and that's what we agreed on, but we haven't stood by the things that we pledged that's the next challenge. >> a great pledge. >> sean: how about the party that's for a balanced budget against generational theft and a party that's for entitlement reform and won't give in. if everybody has power-- >> and social security by not letting it go broke, we're going to protect future generations, we ought to be having the seniors and the young people on our side. >> i think that there is plenty for us to do, what people want us to do most of all is deliver. to take some action and to get the job done. >> without-- >> without the process and-- >> i'm tired of watching obama divide conservatives, i'm tired of it. >> we need to stick together, but you've been-- >> and let me speak to the caucus. i want to talk-- >> and this is last year's

congressional pen ain and-- >> i've want this had forever. god bless you. >> thank you, sean. >> sean: coming up next. >> look, look, we'll get a following. ask bloomberg a question, we get followed. . >> sean: jason mattera attempts to question gun control hypocrite michael bloomberg of new york, but what happens with the security detail that will leave you stunned. it was caught on tape and log on to our special companion site and you can follow the live show and a setback, go to hannity live .foxnews.com. as we continue.

>> and welcome back to hannity. as the gun control debate continues to grow in the country. so does the hypocrisy from the

liberal left. and look what happens when jason mattera dared to ask michael bloomberg a question about the controversial stance on gun control. watch this? >> hey, the spirit of gun control, will you disarm your entire security team? >> we'll get back to you. >> you'll get back to me. would you like my photo? mayor bloomberg, why, why can you defend yourself, but not the majority of americans? i mean, look at the team of security you've got. and you're an advocate for gun control? one, two, three, four, five. i'm counting, there are probably more. >> sean: all right the harassment did not stop there as one member of the security detail continued to follow jason. >> and i'm credentials for the-- >> may i see it, please? >> sure. >> why don't we get over here

out of the street. no, do you have jurisdiction? >> actually i do, security jurisdiction. >> i asked the question, what did i violate. >> and do you have i.d., credentials. >> yeah, it's none of your business what my date of birth is. ask bloomberg a question, we get followed. >> sean: joining me now with reaction, is katie, and krissy, and katie, a pretty basic question. you give up your security, you're so anti-gun. i didn't think it was that big a deal. >> you know, sean when mike bloomberg isn't at parties ogling the back sides of ladies, he a brings his security from press conference to press conference to tell

why americans are armed. and i guarantee the five security guards that he has are carrying more than seven rounds in the gun and extra ammunition magazines on hand. now, the average home invasion, while michael bloomberg had five armed security guards around him at all times, the average home invasion includes three people, three people going into a home, which is something that michael bloomberg disarming the american people, especially in new york, by giving them only seven bullets, is all in favor of. >> you know, and i guess that raises the point. he has all the security. by the way, he deserves it. it's the right thing to do, it's a dangerous world, our politicians, our presidents deserve this. hollywood stars can afford body guards. the average american or woman that maybe has an abusive husband or ex-boyfriend. how is she going to protect herself? >> sean, a few things that your audience should know about the situation. the first is that jason mattera is in the some earnest journalist coming along

wanting to ask questions of the mayor. he's a well-known ambush interview artist and fired before from a job and-- >> christy, christy, forget about-- don't attack jason, let's get to the tape and substance of it. >> sure, i'd love to talk about the substance of it. >> sean: the average new yorker can't care an a gun and if you can carry a gun it's sfrn bulle seven bullets. >> and there's a difference between the mayor and-- >> a woman who is harassed. >> and five plain clothed men and the same detail that mayor guiliani had when he was the mayor of new york. >> sean: mayor guiliani didn't call for seven bullets. mayor guiliani isn't calling for the strictest gun control laws in the history of the country, katie. >> and the left believes that mayor bloomberg and mayor guiliani are more important nan the average american citizen who can't afford to

have 24 hour-7 day a week security. >> absolute not. >> excuse me. excuse he me. to the point of attacking jason mattera. what is wrong with the question of, are you willing to give up your armed security if you're such a big proponent of gun control. michael bloomberg has been arguing that guns make us less safe. so if that is the case, then why does michael bloomberg need five armed security guards who have handguns, who i'm sure have some kind of ar-15 rifle in the car, why do they need that if that's the case if guns don't make us safer? >> here is the difference. what we're talking about is having a trained police officer who knows how to handle a weapon and weeks of training as to how to handle a weapon, what we're not talking about are vigilantes and-- >> christy, wait a second. >> yeah. >> sean: i've been a pistol marksman since i'm 11 years old and i have threats as well. wait a minute, i can't carry a gun that has more than seven bullets or else i'm going to

get arrested. >> what about a woman that maybe had an abusive relationship and' restraining order, should she be able to protect herself like the mayor is protecting himself. why should she be treated differently. >> what i want to know is why you're insistent on more guns out there. >> i'll be happy to answer. >> and crime is dropping in this country, dropping the last 20 years. >> sean: christy. what about the woman that has a restraining order it's a simple question. >> i'm telling you why would you like more guns out there. >> i'll answer the question. >> people are not trained professionals. >> sean: katie you answer. >> first of all, first of all, let's point out a couple of months ago, it was the n.y.p.d. who accidentally shot nine innocent bystanders on the streets of new york, why? because they had never shot their guns in a situation before because michael bloomberg doesn't let them practice. on your point of saying that crime has dropped, it has dropped, why? because every single state has

passed concealed carry laws. the more people conceal carry, the more-- >> and thank you, christy. >> you can call the fbi for that is this when we come back, we now have an official response from the obama administration as to why they think it's safe to hand over your tax dollars and american-made f-16 fighters jets to the radical anti-semetic, anti-american regime in egypt, and we'll read through that justification later and which of the so-called mainstream media outlets are running segment why you should give up your constitution, that answer coming up tonight.

>> welcome back to "hannity." the state department has finally responded after prominent lawmakers voiced concern over the obama administration's quote, gifting of american made f-16's and tanks to the radical regime in egypt. in a letter sent oklahoma james inhoff writing, egypt is a strategic partner with whom we have a long history of close political military relations that have benefitted u.s. interests. delaying or canceling deliveries of the f-16 would,

be a capable military and send a damaging lasting signal to egypt's civilian and military leadership. and that letter went on to praise the country's new muslim brotherhood president mohammed morsi who let's not forget called our allies in 2010 in israel, descendents of apes and pigs. this is the same that allowed them to flourish in middle east and africa. and joining knee senator james inhoff, good to see you. so i'm trying to understand this. here a guy, a former terrorist said this about the israelis in 2010 is now getting gifts of f-16's on our best tanks? help me out, senator, it seems really dumb. >> sean, those guys in the state department and i think in the administration, somehow

they think that mubarak is still there. we had a pretty good relationship and in the middle east, and you know how long that was, sean, that was 30 years, 1981 on up to when morsi took over. now, he's been a stabilizing force there, but all of a sudden as we point out you had the muslim brotherhood there, but i hate to say it, just in the last weekend, in the last three days, he's completely lost control there of the in at th tahrir square and i can't keep track of how many people are dead. ever since he came along and sentenced 21 people after the soccer match to death, then rioting started all over again. it never really stopped, it started all over again, in a-- and in a more exaggerated way, and here they have a total loss of control of their own country, and we're giving this

guy 20-- and four went out and the fact i got a response from someone down in the bureaucracy, it's pretty disturbing, so i sent another letter, this one of course to the president. and haven't the received anything back it from them. but somehow they think it's our friend there, stabilized force and right now, people are being killed as you and i are speaking right now in the streets of tahrir square. >> sean: we were promised this would be the establishment of democracy and they referred to it, it was total and utter complete meltdown and chaos all weekend long. and this guy was part after terrorist organization, and he's established a dictatorship based on sharia law and now we're arming them and in the end, correct me if i'm wrong, won't they have more f-16's than israelis and our allies. >> no, turkey has more, they're the only ones who have more than they will have at the end of this. >> at the end of the 20? >> they have 220 now, and at the end of the 20, the 16 more

that are being-- a few more and, yeah, right now, they're number three in line in terms of the number of f-16's flying in combat and again, this is one of the best fighting machines in the world and we're giving two guys, muslim brotherhood who has lost control of his own country and the use he had for it is getting his own country under his control and then what kind of a regime do you have? and also, i keep thinking, these guys in the white house and the state department, somehow they think that mubarak is still there. >> oh, obviously. and this is seems to be a great danger and why do i think one day we're going to be back on this program and those f-16's are going to be used for nefarious purposes, against one of our allies and the likelihood is pretty great considering his extremism. why can't they see that? why don't they extract a demand to acknowledge israel's right to exist and sit down at the table and make proclamations, something for

what we're giving them here on top of 1.5 billion dollars? >> yeah, that's, that's a good point. there's actually more than just the, well, you had the abrams tanks, some 200 in this grouping and you have more than that over and above what we're giving them of our material, such as the f-16's and the abrams tanks. money in addition to that. so it's just as if nothing has changed from the way it's been in the past. and it could be a disaster. you stop and think about how they could be using these f-16's against people who are our friends in the middle east. it's a scary thing and i haven't heard back, by the way, from the white house on this, decided to go up another step, but they're kind of laughing before, so, i'm not looking for anything serious. >> and one of the-- i will tell you, this country, we don't tap into our natural resources with the-- with the saudi arabia of natural gas, we have more oil, we can be energy independent and i've contended for a long

time that the countries in the middle east must think we're stupid, now they really must think we're dumb. because-- >> we're the only country in the world not developing our own resources we could be totally independent in a matter of weeks and forget all about the middle east. but it's crazy. >> sean: it's a serious thing right now. >> they're in dangerous equipment in the hands that are certainly questionable. >> sean: all right. senator, appreciate you being with us. thank you. coming up next, one of the so-called mainstream news outlets in the country, openly questioning the merits of the united states constitution? if you think you can guess, which one of those networks is behind the left wing movement. the answer may surprise you, but take your guess right now.

>> all right. sadly it's come to this. a mainstream american television network is now openly airing segments dedicated to trashing the

united states constitution and going for that documents to be abolished. over the weekend, charles osgood introduced a wildly irresponsible commentary saying, is he worthy of what americans hold him. he turned things over to a professor at georgetown university. wait until you see this? >> i've got a simple idea. let's give up on the constitution. i know, it sounds radical, but it's really not. constitutional disobedience is as american as apple pie. for example, most of our greatest presidents, jefferson, lincoln, wilson, both roosevelts had doubts about the constitution and many of them disobeyed it when it got in their way. >> sean: now, constitutional disobedience is a pre-requisite for being